Posted on 12/20/2005 12:12:16 PM PST by truthfinder9
SEATTLE — "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.”
“A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics,” added West. “The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree."
In his decision, Judge John Jones ruled that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring a statement to be read to students notifying them about intelligent design. Reaching well beyond the immediate legal questions before him, Judge Jones offered wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution.
"Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case," said West. "Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."
"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," continued West. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about.. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."
"In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance," added Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin. "As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent design will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”
Luskin pointed out that the ruling only applies to the federal district in which it was handed down. It has no legal effect anywhere else. The decision is also unlikely to be appealed, since the recently elected Dover school board members campaigned on their opposition to the policy. "The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling have been preempted by the voters," he said.
"Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West. "But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis. We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution."
Drawing on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines, the scientific theory of intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Proponents include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations around the world.
That's because there wasn't any science to address.
Yeah, ID is a theory with some facts supporting it and a lot of believers. No one has the audacity to say that evolution explains everything perfectly. There are flaws in the theory that cause some to believe that it doesn't fit the evidence. It makes sense to at least inform the students that there is another theory.
BTW- Why does everyone think ID, etc. is only for stupid people? There are many scientists who believe in it. Not to brag, but I'm very much above average and I believe in it. It's not just people in the food industry or fanatical christians.
The scientific community has quite clearly determined that ID is not science. The judge merely determines whether it's permissible to teach religion as if it's science.
PA went for Kerry....barely. If not for the blatant voter fraud in Philly & the 'Burgh....
Well, I disagree that religion cannot be taught in public schools according to our Constitution, so I suppose you and I will not agree on this. That's ok with me.
susie
Fair enough. What precisely is it that you believe in?
There are, of course, no facts support intelligent design in the least. Not the eye, nor flagella, nor blood clotting, nor any of the other long-disproved ID "examples."
Well, it looks like evolutionists still have nothing to offer other than insults against what many hold dear. Methinks the reason for that is that any reasonable person can see that evolution is a joke.
Er...digital? As in..ones and zeros? What happened to the nucleotides?
Many ID scientists have shown how ID is compatible with Genesis. See astronmer Hugh Ross' "The Genesis Question."
Now this wouldn't be true if you believe in the pseudoscience of young-earthism, then you might as well believe in loch ness, alien abductions and Dr. Phil.
Well, I didn't say that the judge determined whether religion can be taught in public schools (BTW, the judge explicitly said that ID can be taught, just not as if it were science, which it's patently not). What I said is that the judge determined whether religion can be taught as if it were science, in place of science.
No I dont believe judges should be asked to waste their time on cases like this. But then I dont think school districts should waste the time of their students by teaching non-science in science class. Now I have no problem with them mentioning that one sentence or discussing the biblical story of creation as part of world history but not science.
For those of you who don't actually follow science, gentics in recent years has been showing that man and "apes" aren't related. Look it up.
That's genetics.
Methinks you're wrong, or more concisely, incorrect. ID posits an unprovable contention. If you can't prove it, it's not science, no matter how you spin it.
Remember: Science answers the question "how ?"
Religion (and philosohpy) concern themselves with the question "why ?"
They're not in conflict, they're just talking past each other. . .
I don't care much for teaching ID myself. What I WOULD like to see in a science class is the parts about the THEORY of evolution that have gaps and unanswered questions (there are quite a few). That is why it is referred to as scientific theory, not a scientific LAW (such as the law of gravity). I've seen quotes in the MSM that said the theory of evolution is as well established as the "theory of gravity". It's the LAW of gravity, not the theory. There is a big difference in science between theory and law. Why can't science classes spend a little time on that?
What an utterly ridiculous statement. You should try to check in with your nearest reality before you post again.
We detect design every day. It's not hard. It's the basis for forensics and arcaeology. That's what ID's about: the ability to detect design.
Ah, thank you for clearing up, I misunderstood you.
I still don't think it's up to a judge to even take these cases. This is to be determined by the local folks, and if they make a stupid decision, it's theirs. This would not be an issue if it weren't associated with religion, (I don't believe).
susie
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.